Christianity's God and Politics

If America does not take care of its own, and allow other peoples to care for themselves, we eventually may lose the title as the greatest nation on earth, if in fact we still carry that honor.

Courtesy: newsjunkiepost.com

(PASO ROBLES, Calif.) - Members of both Parties embrace Christianity, but of the two, Democrats accommodate to their religion more than do Republicans who commit to the cult of Jesus, or at least pretend to do so as not to offend their political base which is subservient to the Party will.

Clearly, there are Democrats who are tainted sufficiently by Christian belief to be cast with Republicans on occasion, but as people of logic they do not submit to the same extent as their counterparts, and are capable of being reasonable rather than totally obedient to Republican dictates.

Christianity is the most prevalent religion, but certainly not the only one represented in the Congress. However, in the Republican ranks almost all, if not entirely, are beholden to Evangelicals who pull the Party’s political strings, and to Grover Norquist who holds signed promises from most Republicans not to raise taxes under any circumstance. In each case it amounts to a contract with the Devil inasmuch as Republican representatives, who most often vote as a block, do so because they have abdicated their right and duty under the Constitution to which they are supposed to be the servants in the interest of all citizens.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights ought to be the Instruments to which Republicans owe their allegiance, not to Evangelicals or Grover Norquist. If their allegiance was to the Constitution, there should be no obstacle too great which they and the Democratic members cannot overcome in a timely and logical manner in the best interest of our people. Unfortunately, because the position of Republicans is based on faith and emotional commitment rather than accommodation, their members seem not inclined to compromise, perhaps because of their desire to limit Barack Obama to just one term.

Most, if not all, Republican candidates for the presidency, are of the far right Christian persuasion, except perhaps the two Mormons who have their own religious agenda. Michele Bachman and Sarah Palin (should she decide to run) would most certainly fall under the sway of the Evangelical Holy See which controls the Party and can make or break a candidate less amenable to its rule. John McCain knows what I mean.

I doubt the sincerity of Sarah Palin’s desire to be President; she’s making too much money as a pretender. Besides, her #1 dude has to be taken into consideration as well as her role as mother. Michele Bachman is married to a man with the look and manner of an Evangelist in his own right which together with Michele might be a more agreeable team to the Holy See. Michele has said God will lead America into a brighter future, or words to that effect; reference, I believe, to the Republican Party of God. She also says that if she misspeaks her mind at times, she knows she is right in her soul; the words of a very devout Christian believer who covers up her mistakes contrary to truth.

Other candidates who are clambering aboard the bandwagon may simply be trying to get exposure; most if not all of whom are of the Christian persuasion, in the hope of moving up the ladder within their Party for a better try at the Presidency next time. I doubt any non-Christian could ever be on the final Republican ticket; for the Holy See is not about to allow a candidate to run who is not under its control.

I am not in favor of Christians leading America under the banner of the Party of God and its Holy See. For the fact is, Republicans seem to want to move America in reverse with Evangelicals in control of our very lives. Geo. W. Bush is as good an example as any to illustrate what I mean. He is a born-again who was used by the Party to do its bidding until, believing that, - if Jesus (as God) is in his heaven, all is right with the world, - his Administration failed properly to prepare for what happened to New Orleans. When afterward he flew over and saw first hand how hurricane Katrina destroyed New Orleans, and saw also the plight of its people, he knew his faith was wrong, and that he had been used, after which he seemed to crawl into his shell.

By then, the damage was done, not just to New Orleans, but to the nation. His words still ring in my mind when he won the presidency; “I’ve been given (the worth of the nation), and I intend to spend it,” and indeed he did, according to the wishes of the Holy See. Underlings were assigned jobs of authority on which Geo. W. Bush could fall back to justify his actions, which really was the will of the Holy See. Appointees to the DOJ were ludicrous in the eyes of the public, but they sustained the president’s will.

Rev. Parsley of Cincinnati, preached that it was God’s (the Holy See’s) will that American Christians should destroy Islam, and the Bush Administration took America to war in Iraq. The President’s faith was unshakable in the belief he was doing the work of his Lord Jesus who he was convinced would not disappoint him till Katrina proved him wrong and he realized the Holy See had sorely misled him. But by then it was too late, the damage had been done, even though some heads rolled.

Karl Rove’s banishment ended with the establishment of a new Republican Order where Karl works behind the scene with the Holy See to achieve their nefarious goal of creating a Republican Theocracy. Donald Rumsfeld resigned as head of the DOD in 2006 at the request of Geo. W. Bush. If Rumsfeld was not all that religious, he nevertheless was a man who used Biblical quotations to lend authority to his ideas conveyed in writing to the president; an example of how the Holy See used others and Christianity to influence the course of political events.

Barack Obama, in the course of his campaign, made promises which he so far has failed to keep; he said he would end the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and bring the troops home. Instead, he decided to listen not to the people but to military commanders on the ground in both theatres; Officers raised in the art of warfare, not peace; and see where it has gotten us. The force of arguments by other on-the-ground officers were summarily ignored and today there are still forty eight thousand non-combat troops in Iraq who have been promised all of them will be withdrawn by the end of this year but will they? If only some are withdrawn, we might assume the rest are meant to leave a U.S. footprint in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan.

For Republicans in the persons of John McCain, who has injected the word “isolationism” to describe the attitude of Americans, and Sen. Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, has planted the seed of Empirical expansionism by saying the U.S. should build military Air Bases in Afghanistan to assure our “enduring presence” there. President Obama in a recent speech echoed those very words which I consider key to his ultimate intention. Where is the saving in bringing all troops home if air bases are built in Afghanistan to assure America’s “enduring presence” there with the expense of maintaining them?

How much does it cost us to maintain an enduring presence in Germany, in Japan and South Korea? The reason we do not have such a presence in Vietnam, where more than fifty-two Thousand of our troops died, is because we lost that war. Why should we have an enduring presence in nations with which we no longer are at war? Vietnam is reunited, and is now a respectable one nation within the world community. Has not Germany and Japan proven their fidelity to that concept?

I gather the president has not ruled out the possibility of enduring presences in Iraq or Afghanistan, and if all the troops are not brought home from Iraq by the end of this year, we citizens will have cause to wonder if our nation truly is Empirical and if so, Why? The needs of America and its peoples is too great, and if our nation does not take care of its own, and allow other peoples to care for themselves, we eventually may loose the title as the greatest nation on earth.

Arab nations of the middle east seeking to throw off the tyranny of one man rule in favor of constitutional and democratic government is another story altogether; we should help them to help themselves to join the world community of nations through diplomatic means primarily, and military to protect peoples from tyrannical loss of lives.

Kenneth G. Ramey, Salem-News.com's Religion and Philosophy Writer, confronts the hard issues of politics and religion from a logical point of view that combines interesting insight with history into the truth, or lack thereof, that underlies the strengths and weaknesses of the Religious Right’s determination to use American politics for its own misguided, or selfish, interest. It’s rare for a writer to balance his writing between religious values and the secular guarantees of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the knowledge that Ken possesses, and to do it so effectively.

Ken was born in Minnesota but was raised in California since 1932. He is the youngest of four boys raised by his mother alone during the dark years of the Great Depression. He Graduated from SFSU in the 1970s when in his mid-forties, majoring in Spanish North American History, and added three years of post-graduate study, much of it in Philosophy and Religion. We live at a critical time in history and believe Ken's views represent the view of many who are tired of the commercialism and false interpretations about religion today. Watch for Ken's articles on religion, philosophy, politics and history. View articles written by Kenneth G. Ramey You can email Ken at: darken1@sbcglobal.net